A writer and friend at IFC recently saw The Hunger Games . As a diehard fan of Potter and someone who’s up onher Twilight , she believes it’s the best adaptation of the three!

  Below are a few highlights from their editorial :

  “The Hunger Games,” on the other hand, stands on its own as a movie. Itdeviates from the source material in a way that is honest to Suzanne Collins’ book, and also often strengthens the story. Much like HBO’s adaptation of “Game of Thrones,” every additional scene in the movie adds something that should have been there to begin with.

  That’s not to say that “The HungerGames” is without its flaws. Every movie has them. But that’s the key word right there. “The Hunger Games” is a movie in its own right whereas both “Twilight” and “Harry Potter” were chained at the hips to their source material.

  By contrast, “The Hunger Games” isn’t constrained by the book’s story. Collins’ novels offer hints that a larger saga is taking place, and the film shows us that. And its strength lies in that component of the movie.

  The argument can be made that “The Hunger Games” was always going to be best served as a movie. The action-packed and dramatic story was constantly constricted by Katniss’s first-person perspective while it was always obvious that the tale being told was much bigger than jushttp://www.chddh.com/t her. Without that restraint, the film was able to set the stage for the future “Hunger Games” films while also allowing the world of Panem to be fully developed.

  We’re not surprised that the adaptation is so well done. Author Suzanne Collins herself is a screenwriter and was closely involved.